any

and only inftance, in which the electors of county or borough had returned a perfon expelled to ferve in the fame parliament.' It is not poffible to conceive a cafe more exactly in point. Mr. Walpole was expelled, and, having a majority of votes at the next election, was returned again. The friends of Mr. Taylor, a candidate set up by the ministry, petitioned the houfe that he might be the fitting member. Thus far the circumstances tally exactly, except that our houfe of commons faved Mr. Luttrell the trouble of petitioning. The point of law however was the fame. It came regularly before the house, and it was their business to determine upon it. They did determine it, for they declared Mr. Taylor not duly elected. If it be faid that they meant this refolution as matter of favour and indulgence to the borough, which had retorted Mr. Walpole upon them, in order that the burgeffes, knowing what the law was, might correct their error, I anfwer,

I. That it is a strange way of arguing to oppose a fuppofition which no man can prove, to a fact which proves itfelf.

II. That if this were the intention of the house of commons, it must have defeated itself. The burgeffes of Lynn could never have known their error, much less could they have corrected it by any inftruction they received from the proceed

ings

F

ings of the houfe of commons. They might perhaps have forefeen, that, if they returned Mr. Walpole again, he would again be rejected; but they never could infer, from a refolution by which the candidate with the feweft votes was declared not duly elected, that, at a future election, and in fimilar circumftances, the houfe of commons would reverfe their refolution, and receive the fame candidate as duly elected, whom they had before rejected.

This indeed would have been a most extraordinary way of declaring the law of parliament, and what I prefume no man, whofe understanding is not at cross purposes with itself, could poffibly understand.

If in a cafe of this importance, I thought myfelf at liberty to argue from suppositions rather than from facts, I think the probability in this cafe is directly the reverse of what the ministry affirm; and that it is much more likely that the houfe of commons at that time would rather have strained a point in favour of Mr. Taylor, than that they would have violated the law of parliament, and robbed Mr. Taylor of a right legally vested in him, to gratify a refractory borough, which, in defiance of them, had returned a perfon branded with the strongest mark of the dif pleasure of the house.

But

But really, Sir, this way of talking, for I cannot call it argument, is a mockery of the common understanding of the nation, too grofs to be endured, Our dearest interests are at stake, An attempt has been made, not merely to rob a single county of its rights, but, by inevitable confequence, to alter the conftitution of the house of commons. This fatal attempt has fucceeded, and stands as a precedent recorded for ever. If the miniftry are unable to defend their caufe by fair argument founded on facts, let them fpare us at least the mortification of being amufed and deluded like children, I believe there is yet a fpirit of refiftance in this country, which will not fubmit to be oppreffed; but I am fure there is a fund of good fenfe in this country, which cannot be deceived.

LETTER

JUNIUS,

XVIII.

To Dr. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,

SOLICITOR GENERAL to her MAJESTY,

SIR,

July 29, 1769, SHALL make you no apology for confidering a certain pamphlet*, in which your late conduct is defended, as written by yourself. The perfonal intereft, the perfonal refentments, and above

*Entitled A letter to the author of the question stated,

above all that wounded spirit, unaccustomed to reproach, and I hope not frequently conscious of deferving it, are fignals which betray the author to us as plainly as if your name were in the title page. You appeal to the public in defence of your reputation. We hold it, Sir, that an injury offered to an individual is interesting to fociety, On this principle the people of England made common cause with Mr. Wilkes. On this principle, if you are injured, they will join in your refentment. I fhall not follow you through the infipid form of a third perfon, but address myself to you directly.

You seem to think the channel of a pamphlet more refpectable and better fuited to the dignity of your caufe, than that of a news-paper. Be it fo. Yet if news-papers are fcurrilous, you must confefs they are impartial. They give us, without any apparent preference, the wit and argument of the ministry, as well as the abufive dulness of the oppofition. The fcales are equally poifed. It is not the printer's fault if the greater weight inclines the balance.

Your pamphlet then is divided into an attack upon Mr. Grenville's character, and a defence of your own. It would have been more confiftent perhaps with your profeffed intentions, to have confined yourself to the laft. But anger has fome

.

claim to indulgence, and railing is ufually a relief to the mind. I hope you have found benefit from the experiment. It is not my defign to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville upon his own principles. I have neither the honour of being perfonally known to him, nor do I pretend to be completely mafter of all the facts. I need not run the rifque of doing an injuftice to his opinions or to his conduct, when your pamphlet alone carries, upon the face of it, a full vindication of · both.

Your firft reflection is that Mr. Grenville was of all men the perfon, who fhould not have complained of inconfiftence with regard to Mr. Wilkes, This, Sir, is either an unmeaning fneer, a peevish expreffion of resentment, or, if it means any thing, you plainly beg the question; for whether his parliamentary conduct with regard to Mr. Wilkes has or has not been inconfiftent, remains yet to be proved. But it feems he received upon the fpot a fufficient chaftifement for excercifing fo unfairly his talent of mifreprefentation. You are a lawyer, Sir, and know better than I do, upon what particular occafions a talent for mifrepresentation may be fairly exerted; but to punish a man a fecond time, when he has been once fufficiently chaftifed, is rather too fevere. It is not the laws of Engand, it is not in in your own Commentaries, nor is